Search

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate pharmacists' knowledge of approved dosing information for cyclic etidronate, alendronate and risedronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis; and to assess its relationship to demographic and pharmaceutical care factors. DESIGN: Fax-back questionnaire to evaluate pharmacists' knowledge of approved bisphosphonate dosing information and their involvement in pharmaceutical/patient care activities through independent indices. SETTING: Community pharmacies in both urban and rural settings in British Columbia. Participants: Pharmacies surveyed with 22% response rate (163 pharmacists), 47% male and 54% owners/managers. Most were independent (31%) or volunteer chain (28%) pharmacies. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean bisphosphonate dosing knowledge score was 76 +/- 11% (mean +/- SD). Mean scores (+/-SD) for questions pertaining to alendronate (92 +/- 13%) were higher than risedronate (81 +/- 26%) and etidronate (48 +/- 19). Pharmacists were least familiar with approved dosing instructions regarding the lack of need to remain upright after etidronate dosing, spacing out of etidronate from food/antacids/calcium/vitamins, and whether risedronate may be taken at bedtime. Factors found to affect pharmacists' bisphosphonate knowledge scores included employment in higher volume pharmacies and greater number of years in practice. Pharmacists in the upper tertile of pharmaceutical care index scores had similar bisphosphonate knowledge scores to those delivering less pharmaceutical care. Pharmacist gender, being owner/manager, and continuing education hours were not significantly associated with higher knowledge or pharmaceutical care scores. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of knowledge of bisphosphonate dosing and delivery of pharmaceutical care amongst community pharmacists surveyed. Given the importance of proper bisphosphonate dosing to optimize drug absorption and to minimize toxicity, pharmacist education should be a priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone mineral density (BMD) is only one of several bone strength determinants affected by osteoporosis therapies. Trabecular Bone Score (TBS), a gray-level texture index determined from lumbar spine (LS) dual-X-ray absorptiometry scans, is an indirect measure of bone microarchitecture independent of and complementary to BMD and clinical risk factors. In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), monthly subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg for 12 mo followed by 24-mo open-label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg (romosozumab-to-alendronate) significantly reduced fracture risk compared to 36-mo alendronate alone in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and prior fracture. This analysis evaluated tissue thickness-adjusted TBS (TBSTT) in a subgroup of patients from ARCH who had post-hoc TBS measurements at baseline and at least one post-baseline visit at months 12, 24, and 36. Baseline characteristics were similar between romosozumab-to-alendronate (n = 190) and alendronate alone (n = 188). Romosozumab led to significantly greater gains in TBSTT vs alendronate at month 12 (least squares mean difference, 3.6%), with greater gains maintained after transition to alendronate and persisting at months 24 (2.9%) and 36 (2.3%; all p<.001). Romosozumab-to-alendronate increased the percentage of individual patients with "normal" TBSTT from 28.9% at baseline to 48.1%, 43.9%, and 45.4% at months 12, 24, and 36, respectively, and decreased the percentage of individual patients with degraded TBSTT from 52.6% to 33.3%, 36.0%, and 33.5%, respectively (all p<.001). A similar but smaller trend was observed with alendronate alone from baseline through month 36 (p ≤.012). Changes in TBSTT and LS BMD were largely unrelated from baseline to month 12 (romosozumab-to-alendronate, r2 = 0.065; alendronate alone, r2 = 0.021) and month 36 (r2 = 0.058; r2 = 0.057, respectively). In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and prior fracture, 12-mo romosozumab followed by 24-mo alendronate significantly improved bone microarchitecture estimated by TBSTT more than 36-mo alendronate alone., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Postmenopausal women are at significant risk for osteoporotic fractures due to their rapid bone loss. Half of all postmenopausal women will get an osteoporosis-related fracture over their lifetime, with 25% developing a spine deformity and 15% developing a hip fracture. By 2050, more than half of all osteoporotic fractures will occur in Asia, with postmenopausal women being the most susceptible. Early management can halt or even reverse the progression of osteoporosis. Consequently, on October 31, 2020, the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association hosted the Asia-Pacific (AP) Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention (POFP) consensus meeting, which was supported by the Asian Federation of Osteoporosis Societies (AFOS) and the Asia Pacific Osteoporosis Foundation (APOF). International and domestic experts developed ten applicable statements for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis but no fragility fractures in the AP region. The experts advocated, for example, that postmenopausal women with a high fracture risk be reimbursed for pharmaceutical therapy to prevent osteoporotic fractures. More clinical experience and data are required to modify intervention tactics., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Chih-Hsing Wu received honoraria for lectures, attending meetings, and/or travel from Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, Merck, Servier laboratories, GE Lunar, Harvester, TCM Biotech, and Alvogen/Lotus. E Michael Lewiecki is an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen, and an investigator for Radius., (Copyright © 2023 Formosan Medical Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Fragility fractures (i.e., low-energy fractures) account for most fractures among older Canadians and are associated with significant increases in morbidity and mortality. Study results suggest that low-energy fracture rates (associated with surgical intervention and outcomes) declined slightly, but largely remained stable in the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic., Purpose/introduction: This study describes rates of low-energy fractures, time-to-surgery, complications, and deaths post-surgery in patients with fractures during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Alberta, Canada, compared to the three years prior., Methods: A repeated cross-sectional study was conducted using provincial-level administrative health data. Outcomes were assessed in 3-month periods in the 3 years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic and in the first two 3-month periods after restrictions were implemented. Patterns of fracture- and hospital-related outcomes over the control years (2017-2019) and COVID-19 restrictions periods (2020) were calculated., Results: Relative to the average from the control periods, there was a slight decrease in the absolute number of low-energy fractures (n = 4733 versus n = 4308) during the first COVID-19 period, followed by a slight rise in the second COVID-19 period (n = 4520 versus n = 4831). While the absolute number of patients with low-energy fractures receiving surgery within the same episode of care decreased slightly during the COVID-19 periods, the proportion receiving surgery and the proportion receiving surgery within 24 h of admission remained stable. Across all periods, hip fractures accounted for the majority of patients with low-energy fractures receiving surgery (range: 58.9-64.2%). Patients with complications following surgery and in-hospital deaths following fracture repair decreased slightly during the COVID-19 periods., Conclusions: These results suggest that low-energy fracture rates, associated surgeries, and surgical outcomes declined slightly, but largely remained stable in the first few months of the pandemic. Further investigation is warranted to explore patterns during subsequent COVID-19 waves when the healthcare system experienced severe strain., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose/introduction: The objective of this study was to describe osteoporosis-related care patterns during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Alberta, Canada, relative to the 3-year preceding., Methods: A repeated cross-sectional study design encompassing 3-month periods of continuous administrative health data between March 15, 2017, and September 14, 2020, described osteoporosis-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and treatment patterns. Outcomes included patients with osteoporosis-related healthcare encounters, physician visits, diagnostic and laboratory test volumes, and treatment initiations and disruptions. The percent change between outcomes was calculated, averaged across the control periods (2017-2019), relative to the COVID-19 periods (2020)., Results: Relative to the average control March to June period, all HCRU declined during the corresponding COVID-19 period. There was a reduction of 14% in patients with osteoporosis healthcare encounters, 13% in general practitioner visits, 9% in specialist practitioner visits, 47% in bone mineral density tests, and 13% in vitamin D tests. Treatment initiations declined 43%, 26%, and 35% for oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and denosumab, respectively. Slight increases were observed in the proportion of patients with treatment disruptions. In the subsequent June to September period, HCRU either returned to or surpassed pre-pandemic levels, when including telehealth visits accounting for 33-45% of healthcare encounters during the COVID periods. Oral bisphosphonate treatment initiations remained lower than pre-pandemic levels., Conclusions: This study demonstrates the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding public health lockdowns further heightened the "crisis" around the known gap in osteoporosis care and altered the provision of care (e.g., use of telehealth and initiation of treatment). Osteoporosis has a known substantial care and management disparity, which has been classified as a crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic created additional burden on osteoporosis patient care with healthcare encounters, physician visits, diagnostic and laboratory tests, and treatment initiations all declining during the initial pandemic period, relative to previous years., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Reducing fracture risk is the objective of osteoporosis treatment. Bone-forming osteoporosis drugs increase bone mass, restore bone microarchitecture, and reduce fracture risk more effectively than oral bisphosphonates, providing strong justification for the use of these agents as the initial therapy or after anti-remodeling agents in patients at very high risk of fracture. At the end of a 12-to-24-month course of osteoanabolic therapy, transitioning to a potent anti-remodeling agent maintains and enhances the treatment benefit. This review describes the clinical applications of osteoanabolic therapy for osteoporosis.

To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab). Initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive resulted in larger increases in bone mineral density of both hip and spine compared with the reverse sequence., Introduction: Teriparatide followed by an antiresorptive increases bone mineral density (BMD) more than using an antiresorptive first. To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, we reviewed randomized clinical trials where romosozumab was administered before (ARCH, FRAME) or following (STRUCTURE, Phase 2 extension) an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab, respectively)., Methods: We evaluated BMD percentage change for total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) and response rates (BMD gains ≥ 3% and ≥ 6%) at years 1 and 2 (except STRUCTURE with only 1-year data available)., Results: With 1-year romosozumab initial therapy in ARCH and FRAME, TH BMD increased 6.2% and 6.0%, and LS BMD increased 13.7% and 13.1%, respectively. When romosozumab was administered for 1 year after alendronate (STRUCTURE) or denosumab (Phase 2 extension), TH BMD increased 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, and LS BMD increased 9.8% and 5.3%, respectively. Over 2 years, TH and LS BMD increased 7.1% and 15.2% with romosozumab/alendronate, 8.5% and 16.6% with romosozumab/denosumab, and 3.8% and 11.5% with denosumab/romosozumab, respectively. A greater proportion of patients achieved BMD gains ≥ 6% when romosozumab was used first, particularly for TH, versus the reverse sequence (69% after romosozumab/denosumab; 15% after denosumab/romosozumab)., Conclusion: In this study, larger mean BMD increases and greater BMD responder rates were achieved when romosozumab was used before, versus after, an antiresorptive agent. Since BMD on treatment is a strong surrogate for bone strength and fracture risk, this analysis supports the thesis that initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive will result in greater efficacy versus the reverse sequence., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In many countries, osteoporosis is predominantly managed by primary care physicians; however, management after a fragility fracture has not been widely investigated. We describe osteoporosis care gaps in a real-world patient cohort. Our findings help inform initiatives to identify and overcome obstacles to effective management of patients after fragility fracture., Purpose: A fragility fracture is a major risk factor for subsequent fracture in adults aged ≥ 50 years. This retrospective observational study aimed to characterize post-fracture management in Canadian primary care., Methods: A total of 778 patients with an index fragility fracture (low-trauma, excluding small bones) occurring between 2014 and 2016 were identified from medical records at 76 primary care centers in Canada, with follow-up until January 2018., Results: Of 778 patients (80.5% female, median age [IQR] 73 [64-80]), 215 were on osteoporosis treatment and 269 had osteoporosis diagnosis recorded prior to their index fracture. The median follow-up was 363 (IQR 91-808) days. Of patients not on osteoporosis treatment at their index fracture, 60.2% (n = 339/563) remained untreated after their index fracture and 62.2% (n = 23/37) continued untreated after their subsequent fracture. After their index fracture, fracture risk assessment (FRAX or CAROC) was not performed in 83.2% (n = 647/778) of patients, and 59.9% (n = 466/778) of patients did not receive bone mineral density testing. Of patients without osteoporosis diagnosis recorded prior to their index date, 61.3% (n = 300/489) remained undiagnosed after their index fracture. At least one subsequent fracture occurred in 11.5% (n = 86/778) of patients., Conclusion: In the primary care setting, fragility fracture infrequently resulted in osteoporosis treatment or fracture risk assessment, even after multiple fragility fractures. These results suggest a fragility fracture is not recognized as a major risk factor for subsequent fracture and its occurrence does not prompt primary care physicians to intervene. These data urge initiatives to identify and overcome obstacles to primary care physicians' effective management of patients after fragility fractures., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The fully human monoclonal antibody denosumab was approved for treatment of osteoporosis in 2010 on the basis of its potent antiresorptive activity, which produces clinically meaningful increases in bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk at key skeletal sites. At that time, questions remained regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of this receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) inhibitor; and with clinical experience, new questions have arisen regarding its optimal use. Here, we examine these questions through the lens of data from the FREEDOM trial program and other studies to determine where denosumab fits in the osteoporosis treatment landscape. Clinical consensus and evidentiary support have grown for denosumab as a highly effective anti-osteoporosis therapy for patients at high risk of fracture. In the 10-year FREEDOM Extension study, denosumab treatment produced progressive incremental increases in BMD, sustained low rates of vertebral fracture, and further reduction in nonvertebral fracture risk without increased risk of infection, cancer, or immunogenicity. There was no evidence that suppression of bone turnover or mineralization was excessive, and rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fracture (AFF) were very low. It is now recognized, however, that transitioning to another anti-osteoporosis therapy after denosumab discontinuation is essential to mitigate a transient rebound of bone turnover causing rapid BMD loss and increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures (MVFs). Taken together, the available data show that denosumab has a favorable benefit/risk profile and is a versatile agent for preventing osteoporotic fractures in the short and long term. Video abstract: Denosumab in the Treatment of Osteoporosis-10 Years Later (MP4 62727 KB)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Trunk muscle endurance may be associated with balance and falls self-efficacy for people with osteoporosis. However, all previous studies have examined trunk muscle strength rather than endurance., Purpose: To explore the relationships between trunk muscle endurance and standing balance and falls self-efficacy for women with vertebral fractures., Materials and Methods: This is an exploratory, secondary analysis of baseline data of a pilot randomized controlled trial in Ontario, Canada. Thirty-one women with osteoporosis, aged 65 years or older, with at least one vertebral fracture were included. The associations between balance (Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation) and trunk muscle endurance (Timed Loaded Standing Test) and falls self-efficacy (Falls Efficacy Scale International) and trunk muscle endurance were tested via Spearman rank order correlation with Fisher's z transformations., Results: Trunk muscle endurance was correlated with better balance performance on the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation [Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.85; p  < 0.001], but not with falls self efficacy (Spearman correlation coefficient; -0.22; 95% confidence interval: -0.53 to 0.14; p  = 0.23)., Conclusions: Trunk muscle endurance was moderately associated with better standing balance performance but not falls self-efficacy, highlighting the importance of trunk muscle endurance for standing balance for older adults with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures.Implications for RehabilitationOlder adults with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures who have better trunk muscle endurance may also have better standing balance.There was no association between trunk muscle endurance and how confident a person is that they will not fall while completing various activities of daily living.Trunk muscle endurance training could be included as part of a standing balance rehabilitation program for this population.

Background: Treatment advances have reduced the adverse events associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and led to an increased number of transplants performed. HSCT patients are living longer with concerns on long-term outcomes. Bone fragility and fracture are at the forefront for long-term morbidities post-HSCT., Results: In HSCT recipients, evidence has accumulated to support recommendations for more extensive monitoring of bone fragility and more appropriate administration of osteoporosis pharmacotherapies for patients at high risk of bone loss and/or fracture., Conclusion: This executive summary reports and summarizes the main recommendations published previously, including bone assessment, dietary and lifestyle recommendations and osteoporosis medication., (© 2021 Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

The scorecard evaluates the burden and management of osteoporosis in Canada and how care pathways differ across Canadian provinces. The results showed there are inequities in patients' access to diagnosis, treatment, and post-fracture care programs in Canada. Interventions are needed to close the osteoporosis treatment gap and minimize these inequities., Introduction: The purpose of this study was to develop a visual scorecard that assesses the burden of osteoporosis and its management within Canada and seven Canadian provinces., Methods: We adapted the Scorecard for Osteoporosis in Europe (SCOPE) to score osteoporosis indicators for Canada and seven provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland). We obtained data from a comprehensive literature review and interviews with osteoporosis experts. We scored 20 elements across four domains: burden of disease, policy framework, service provision, and service uptake. Each element was scored as red, yellow, or green, indicating high, intermediate, or low risk, respectively. Elements with insufficient data were scored black., Results: Canada performed well on several elements of osteoporosis care, including high uptake of risk assessment algorithms and minimal wait times for hip fracture surgery. However, there were no established fracture registries, and reporting on individuals with high fracture risk who remain untreated was limited. Furthermore, osteoporosis was not an official health priority in most provinces. Government-backed action plans and other osteoporosis initiatives were primarily confined to Ontario and Alberta. Several provinces (Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland) did not have any registered fracture liaison service (FLS) programs. Access to diagnosis and treatment was also inconsistent and reimbursement policies did not align with clinical guidelines., Conclusion: Government-backed action plans are needed to address provincial inequities in patients' access to diagnosis, treatment, and FLS programs in Canada. Further characterization of the treatment gap and the establishment of fracture registries are critical next steps in providing high-quality osteoporosis care.

FRAX ® calculates the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which are considered to have a greater clinical impact than other fractures. Our results suggest that, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, those treated with teriparatide had a 60% lower risk of FRAX ® -defined MOF compared with those treated with risedronate., Introduction: The VERO trial was an active-controlled fracture endpoint clinical trial that enrolled postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis. After 24 months, a 52% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) of clinical fractures was reported in patients randomized to teriparatide compared with risedronate. We examined fracture results restricted to FRAX ® -defined major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which include clinical vertebral, hip, humerus, and forearm fractures., Methods: In total, 1360 postmenopausal women (mean age 72.1 years) were randomized to receive subcutaneous daily teriparatide (20 μg) or oral weekly risedronate (35 mg). Patient cumulative incidence of ≥ 1 FRAX ® -defined MOF and of all clinical fractures were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses, and the comparison between treatments was based on the stratified log-rank test. Additionally, an extended Cox model was used to estimate HRs at different time points. Incidence fracture rates were estimated at each 6-month interval., Results: After 24 months, 16 (2.6%) patients in the teriparatide group had ≥ 1 low trauma FRAX ® -defined MOF compared with 40 patients (6.4%) in the risedronate group (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68; p = 0.001). Clinical vertebral and radius fractures were the most frequent FRAX ® -defined MOF sites. The largest difference in incidence rates of both FRAX ® -defined MOF and all clinical fractures between treatments occurred during the 6- to 12-month period. There was a statistically significant reduction in fractures between groups as early as 7 months for both categories of clinical fractures analyzed., Conclusion: In postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, treatment with teriparatide was more efficacious than risedronate, with a 60% lower risk of FRAX ® -defined MOF during the 24-month treatment period. Fracture risk was statistically significantly reduced at 7 months of treatment., Clinical Trial Information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

Vertebral fractures (VFx) occur most frequently in the mid-thoracic and thoraco-lumbar regions, which experience the highest mechanical loading along the spine. The prevalence and incidence of VFx by their location and severity, and their relationship with bone mineral density (BMD), are seldom reported in randomized clinical trial cohorts. The VERO trial randomized 1360 postmenopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe VFx to receive either teriparatide or risedronate for up to 24 months. In this post hoc analysis, we describe the centrally read distribution and severity of prevalent and incident VFx, and the association of their location with the baseline BMD. At baseline, 21.4% of all evaluable vertebral bodies had a prevalent VFx; most commonly at L 1 , T 12 , L 2 and T 11 (38.5%, 37.4%, 25.3% and 23.5% of patients, respectively). Patients with prevalent VFx only at T 12 /L 1 showed a higher baseline BMD compared to patients with VFx at other levels. At month 24, 100 patients had 126 incident VFx (teriparatide: 35; risedronate: 91). The most frequent incident VFx occurred at T 12 (n = 17, 1.6% of patients), followed by L 1 and T 11 (n = 14, 1.3% both). The frequency of incident VFx was lower at all vertebral levels in patients given teriparatide. These results confirm prior reports that VFx occurs more frequently at mid-thoracic and thoraco-lumbar regions of the spine. Patients with these VFx locations have higher BMD than those who fracture at other sites, suggesting a role for mechanical stress in the etiology of VFx. Teriparatide is superior to risedronate in the prevention of VFx at these common fracture locations.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110.

Antiresorptive therapies reduce fracture risk; however, long-term bone turnover inhibition may raise concerns about rare, but serious, skeletal adverse events-atypical femoral fracture (AFF) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, has demonstrated sustained low vertebral and nonvertebral fracture rates with low skeletal adverse event rates in the 3-year FREEDOM trial and its 7-year Extension (in which all subjects received open-label denosumab). In this analysis, we aimed to estimate fractures prevented relative to skeletal adverse events observed with 10 years of denosumab therapy. We modeled a hypothetical placebo group using the virtual-twin method, thereby allowing calculation of fractures prevented with denosumab treatment (relative to the virtual-placebo group) in the context of AFF or ONJ events observed in the long-term denosumab group. Estimated virtual-placebo and observed long-term denosumab exposure-adjusted fracture rates per 100,000 subject-years were calculated for fractures classified as clinical (3180 and 1777, respectively), major osteoporotic (2699 and 1525), vertebral (1879 and 901), and nonvertebral (2924 and 1528), and compared with observed AFF and ONJ in the long-term denosumab group (5 and 35 per 100,000 subject-years, respectively). The skeletal benefit/risk ratio (fractures prevented per adverse event observed) for clinical fractures was 281 (AFF) and 40 (ONJ). Based on this model, denosumab treatment for up to 10 years has a favorable skeletal benefit/risk profile when comparing fractures prevented per skeletal adverse event observed. Clinical trial registration: NCT00089791, NCT00523341., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest S Ferrari has received research grants from Amgen, UCB Pharma, and Agnovos; has received consulting fees from Amgen, UCB Pharma, Eli Lilly, Agnovos, and LAbatec; and has given expert testimony for Novartis. EM Lewiecki has received research grants from Radius, Amgen, Mereo, and Bindex; has received consulting fees and served on the advisory board for Amgen, Radius, Alexion, Sandoz, and Samsung Bioepis; and has served on the speaker's bureau for Radius and Alexion. PW Butler, DB Crittenden, and N Pannacciulli are former employees and stockholders of Amgen Inc. DL Kendler has received research grants from Amgen and AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Amgen and Eli Lilly; and has served on the speaker's bureau for Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. N Napoli has received consulting fees from Abiogen, Eli Lilly, and UCB Biopharma; and has served on the speaker's bureau for Eli Lilly. S Huang is an employee and stockholder of Amgen Inc. E Siris has received royalties from Up To Date as a peer reviewer for denosumab. N Binkley has received research grants from Radius, RTI Health Solutions, and GE Healthcare; and has received consulting fees/served on an Advisory Board for Amgen and Taurus., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Regular exercise is advocated in osteoporosis guidelines to prevent fractures. Few studies have evaluated the effect of exercise on functional performance, posture, and other outcomes that are important to patients after vertebral fractures., Objective: This pilot study will explore the effect of home exercise versus control on functional performance, posture, and patient-reported outcome measures., Design: This study was a parallel 2-arm pilot feasibility trial with 1:1 randomization to exercise or attentional control groups., Setting: This study took place in 5 Canadian and 2 Australian academic or community hospitals/centers., Participants: This study included 141 women ≥65 years of age with radiographically confirmed vertebral fractures., Intervention: A physical therapist delivered exercise and behavioral counseling in 6 home visits over 8 months and monthly calls. Participants were to exercise ≥3 times weekly. Controls received equal attention., Measurements: Functional performance, posture, quality of life, pain, and behavior-change outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 6 (questionnaires only) and 12 months. Adherence to exercise was assessed by calendar diary. All t tests examined between-group mean differences (MD) in change from baseline in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses., Results: There was a small effect of exercise on 5 times sit-to-stand test versus control (MD = -1.58 [95% CI = -3.09 to -0.07], intention-to-treat; MD = -1.49 [95% CI = -3.12 to 0.16], per-protocol). There were no other major or statistically significant MDs for any other measured outcomes after follow-up. Adherence declined over time., Limitations: Treatment effects on variables may have been underestimated due to multiple comparisons and underpowered analyses., Conclusions: Our exploratory estimate of the effect of exercise on functional leg muscle strength was consistent in direction and magnitude with other trials in individuals with vertebral fractures. Declining adherence to home exercise suggests that strategies to enhance long-term adherence might be important in future confirmatory trials., (© 2020 American Physical Therapy Association.)

Background: VERO is a fracture endpoint study in women with established osteoporosis that showed reduction in the risks of new vertebral fractures (VFx) and clinical fractures in women randomized to teriparatide compared with risedronate. Patients on psychotropic drugs (hypnotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants [selective serotonin- and norepinephrine-reuptake inhibitors: SSRIs and SNRIs]) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be at a higher risk of fractures. We studied the association of exposure to these medications with the risk of fractures in the VERO study cohort, including an assessment of their potential interactions with the assigned clinical trial drugs., Methods: A total of 1360 postmenopausal women with at least 2 moderate or 1 severe VFx and bone mineral density T-score ≤-1.50 were randomized to subcutaneous daily teriparatide (20μg) or oral weekly risedronate (35mg) in a double-blind, double-dummy, 2-year trial. In thispost-hoc analysis, multivariable log-binomial and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (RR) or hazard ratios (HR) for the exposure to these concomitant medications with the occurrence of incident fractures. We also assessed treatment effect modifications on anti-fracture efficacy driven by the use of these medications., Results: There were 406 (29.9 %), 347 (25.5 %) and 176 (12.9 %) subjects taking PPIs, benzodiazepines/hypnotics, and SSRIs/SNRIs during the study, respectively. For all fracture endpoints, the greater risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ within the categories of psychotropic drugs and PPIs. Multivariable analysis showed that the risk of pooled new and worsened VFx was higher in PPI users than in non-PPI users (RR: 1.57; p=0.032), regardless of the study treatment. Benzodiazepine/hypnotic drug users showed an increased risk of clinical fractures (HR: 1.71; p=0.026) and non-vertebral fragility fractures (NVFFx, HR: 1.89; p=0.017), regardless of the study treatment. Increases in the risk of clinical fractures (HR: 1.93; p=0.018) and NVFFx (HR: 2.16; p=0.011) were also observed in SSRI/SNRI users, regardless of the study treatment., Conclusion: In postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the superior anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate was consistent regardless of psychotropic or PPI drugs use. Patients taking psychotropic drugs and PPIs showed a higher risk for NVFFx and VFx respectively, compared to those not on these medications., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Romosozumab is a therapy that stimulates bone formation and reduces bone resorption. In this study of postmenopausal women with low BMD, a second course of romosozumab following a period off treatment or on denosumab increased or maintained BMD, respectively, and was well tolerated, providing insight into treatment sequence options., Introduction: In patients with high fracture risk, therapies that stimulate bone formation provide rapid BMD gains; currently available agents, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, are limited to a 2-year lifetime exposure and generally used for a single treatment course. However, for long-term osteoporosis management, a second treatment course may be appropriate. Romosozumab, a therapy with the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption, reduces fracture risk within 12 months. Here, we report efficacy and safety of a second romosozumab course., Methods: In this phase 2, dose-finding study, postmenopausal women with low bone mass (T-score ≤ - 2.0 and ≥ - 3.5) received romosozumab or placebo (month 0-24) followed by placebo or denosumab (month 24-36); participants then received a year of romosozumab (month 36-48)., Results: Of 167 participants who entered the month 36-48 period, 35 had been initially randomized to romosozumab 210 mg monthly. In participants who received romosozumab 210 mg monthly followed by placebo, a second romosozumab course (n = 19) increased BMD by amounts similar to their initial treatment (month 0-12) at the lumbar spine (12.4%; 12.0%, respectively) and total hip (6.0%; 5.5%, respectively). Following denosumab, a second romosozumab course (n = 16) increased BMD at the lumbar spine (2.3%) and maintained BMD at the total hip. Safety profiles were similar between first and second romosozumab courses., Conclusions: After 12 months off-treatment, a second romosozumab course again led to rapid and large BMD gains. Following denosumab, BMD gains with romosozumab were smaller than with initial treatment. No new safety findings were observed during the second course.

Patients often start treatment to reduce fracture risk because of a bone mineral density T-score consistent with osteoporosis (≤ -2.5). Others with a T-score above -2.5 may be treated when there is a history of fragility fracture or when a fracture risk algorithm categorizes them as having a high risk for fracture. It is common to initiate therapy with a generic oral bisphosphonate, unless contraindicated, and continue therapy if the patient is responding as assessed by stability or an increase in bone mineral density. However, some patients may respond well to an oral bisphosphonate, yet remain with an unacceptably high risk for fracture. Recognition of this occurrence has led to the development of an alternative strategy: treat-to-target. This involves identifying a biological marker (treatment target) that represents an acceptable fracture risk and then initiating treatment with an agent likely to reach this target. If the patient is on a path to reaching the target with initial therapy, treatment is continued. If it appears the target will not be reached with initial therapy, treatment is changed to an agent more likely to achieve the goal., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bone mineral density (BMD) can be measured at multiple skeletal sites using various technologies to aid clinical decision-making in bone and mineral disorders. BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has a critical role in predicting risk of fracture, diagnosis of osteoporosis, and monitoring patients. In clinical practice, DXA remains the most available and best validated tool for monitoring patients. A quality baseline DXA scan is essential for comparison with all subsequent scans. Monitoring patients with serial measurements requires technical expertise and knowledge of the least significant change in order to determine when follow-up scans should be repeated. Prior ISCD Official Positions have clarified how and when repeat DXA is useful as well as the interpretation of results. The 2019 ISCD Official Positions considered new evidence and clarifies if and when BMD should be repeated. There is good evidence showing that repeat BMD measurement can identify people who experience bone loss, which is an independent predictor of fracture risk. There is good evidence showing that the reduction in spine and hip fractures with osteoporosis medication is proportional to the change in BMD with treatment. There is evidence that measuring BMD is useful following discontinuation of osteoporosis treatment. There is less documentation addressing the effectiveness of monitoring BMD to improve medication adherence, whether monitoring of BMD reduces the risk of fracture, or effectively discriminates patients who should and should not recommence treatment following an interruption of medication. Further research is needed in all of these areas., (Copyright © 2019 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Evidence for further nonvertebral fracture (NVF) reductions with long-term antiresorptive therapy in osteoporosis is lacking., Objective: To evaluate NVF risk reduction in subjects receiving ≤10 years of denosumab treatment., Design: Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-year Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial (NCT00089791) and its open-label 7-year extension (NCT00523341)., Setting: One hundred seventy-two study centers worldwide., Patients: Women 60 to 90 years, lumbar spine or total hip bone mineral density T-scores <-2.5 (≥-4.0 at both)., Interventions: Subjects randomly assigned 1:1 denosumab 60 mg SC Q6M (long-term) or placebo (crossover) in FREEDOM; eligible subjects could enroll in the extension to receive denosumab 60 mg SC Q6M., Main Outcome Measures: NVF Exposure-adjusted subject incidence (per 100 subject-years) during denosumab treatment years 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 (all subjects) and years 4 to 10 (long-term only), and rate ratios (RRs) for years 4 to 7 or 4 to 10 vs 1 to 3., Results: Among 4074 subjects (2343 long-term, 1731 crossover), NVF rates (95% CI) in all subjects were 2.15 (1.90 to 2.43) during years 1 to 3 and 1.53 (1.34 to 1.75) during years 4 to 7 of denosumab treatment [RR (95% CI) = 0.72 (0.61 to 0.86); P < 0.001]; in long-term only were 1.98 (1.67 to 2.34) during years 1 to 3 and 1.44 (1.24 to 1.66) during years 4 to 10 [RR = 0.74 (0.60 to 0.93); P = 0.008]. combined osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture rate was 0.06., Conclusions: Long-term denosumab treatment, >3 and ≤10 years, was associated with further reductions in NVF rates compared with the first 3 years., (Copyright © 2019 Endocrine Society.)

Background and Purpose: We sought to evaluate the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) in community-dwelling women 65 years and older with vertebral fracture and to describe score distributions and potential ceiling and floor effects., Methods: This was a secondary data analysis of baseline data from the Build Better Bones with Exercise randomized controlled trial using the BOOMER. A total of 141 women with osteoporosis and radiographically confirmed vertebral fracture were included. Concurrent validity and internal consistency were assessed in comparison to the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Normality and ceiling/floor effects of total BOOMER scores and component test items were also assessed. Exploratory analyses of assistive aid use and falls history were performed., Results and Discussion: Tests for concurrent validity demonstrated moderate correlation between total BOOMER and SPPB scores. The BOOMER component tests showed modest internal consistency. Substantial ceiling effect and nonnormal score distributions were present among overall sample and those not using assistive aids for total BOOMER scores, although scores were normally distributed for those using assistive aids. The static standing with eyes closed test demonstrated the greatest ceiling effects of the component tests, with 92% of participants achieving a maximal score., Conclusions: While the BOOMER compares well with the SPPB in community-dwelling women with vertebral fractures, researchers or clinicians considering using the BOOMER in similar or higher-functioning populations should be aware of the potential for ceiling effects.

The main objective of this study was to explore whether vertebral fracture characteristics or posture is independently associated with physical performance. Posture was significantly associated with physical performance but fracture characteristics were not, suggesting posture should be the focus of physical performance variance., Purpose: The main objective of this study was to explore whether vertebral fracture characteristics (number, severity, location) or occiput-to-wall distance (OWD) is independently associated with physical performance., Methods: This was a secondary data analysis using baseline data from a randomized controlled trial, of community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older with a suspected vertebral fragility fracture. Lateral thoracic and lumbar spine radiographs were used to determine the number, location, and severity of fracture. The dependent variables were timed up and go (TUG), five times sit-to-stand, four-meter walk, and step test. The independent variables were number, severity, location of fracture, and OWD. Pain during movement and age were covariates. Multivariable regression analyses determined the association between each of the dependent and independent variables., Results: Participants' (n = 158) mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 75.9 (6.5) years. They had a mean (SD) BMI, OWD, and number of fractures of 26.7 (5.3) kg/m 2 , 5.7 (4.6) cm, and 2.2 (1.8), respectively. OWD was independently associated with TUG (estimated coefficient [B] = 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16, 0.42), five times sit-to-stand (B = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.12, 0.55), four-meter walk (B = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.13), and step test (B = - 0.36, 95% CI = - 0.50, - 0.23) in the unadjusted model. OWD was independently associated with TUG (B = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.12, 0.38), five times sit-to-stand (B = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.07, 0.50), four-meter walk (B = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.12), and step test (B = - 0.22, 95% CI = - 0.47, - 0.19) in the adjusted model., Conclusion: OWD was significantly associated with physical performance but fracture characteristics were not. These analyses were exploratory and require replication in future studies.

In randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with teriparatide, the number of patients with incident hip fractures was small and insufficiently powered to show statistically significant differences between groups. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of teriparatide in the reduction of hip and upper limb fractures in women and men with osteoporosis. A comprehensive search of databases until 22 November 2017 was conducted for RCTs of at least 6-month duration that reported non-spine fractures (hip, humerus, forearm, wrist), either as an efficacy or safety endpoint. Only RCTs that included patients with the approved treatment indications and dose for use of teriparatide were included; trials with off-label use of teriparatide were excluded. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Statistical procedures included Peto's method and Mantel-Haenszel with empirical correction, as most of the RCTs reported zero events in at least one of the treatment arms. Study results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Publication bias and heterogeneity were evaluated with standard statistical tests. Twenty-three RCTs were included, 19 with an active-controlled arm (representing 64.9% of the patients included in the control group) and 11 double-blind, representing data on 8644 subjects, 3893 of them treated with teriparatide. Mean age (SD) was 67.0 (4.5) years, median treatment duration 18 months (range: 6 to 24 months). A total of 34 incident hip, 31 humerus, 31 forearm, and 62 wrist fractures were included. Meta-analysis results showed an OR (95% CI) for hip fractures of 0.44 (0.22-0.87; p = 0.019) in patients treated with teriparatide compared with controls. The effects on the risk of humerus [1.02 (0.50-2.08)], forearm [0.53 (0.26-1.08)] and wrist fractures [1.21 (0.72-2.04)] were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). This meta-analysis provides evidence of efficacy of teriparatide in reducing hip fractures by 56% in patients with osteoporosis., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study of women with a suspected vertebral fracture determined the association between vertebral fracture characteristics and posture. The number of fractures was associated with posture. Severity of fracture was associated with posture when adjusting for pain. Fracture characteristics explain some variability in posture in women with a suspected vertebral fracture., Purpose: Osteoporotic vertebral fractures are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. An accumulation of vertebral fractures may lead to forward head posture, which has been independently associated with mortality. It is unclear how fracture characteristics, including the number, severity, and location of fracture, contribute to occiput-to-wall distance (OWD)., Methods: This was a cross-sectional secondary data analysis using baseline data from a randomized controlled trial, in community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older with a suspected vertebral fragility fracture. Lateral thoracic and lumbar spine radiographs were used to determine the number, location, and severity of fracture. Occiput-to-wall distance (OWD) was used to assess forward head posture. Pain during movement (0-10 scale) and age were considered as confounding variables. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate relationships between fracture variables and OWD., Results: Participants (n = 158) were of mean age 75.9 (SD 6.5) years with a mean (SD) BMI = 26.7 (5.3) kg/m 2 , OWD = 5.7 (4.6) cm, and number of fractures = 2.4 (2.4). In unadjusted analyses, the number of fractures (B = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.04, 1.59) was associated with OWD. When adjusting for pain, severity of fractures (B = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.001, 2.15) was independently associated with OWD. Location was not associated with OWD in any of the models., Conclusions: The number of fractures was significantly associated with OWD in the unadjusted model, explaining more of the variability in OWD than other fracture characteristics. Severity of fracture was associated with OWD in the adjusted model. However, pain may confound the relationship between OWD and fracture characteristics.

Purpose: Using data from the 2-year, randomized, double-dummy VERO trial, we examined the changes in 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations over time, and whether the fracture risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate varies by baseline 25(OH)D sufficiency category., Methods: Postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis received subcutaneous daily teriparatide 20 μg or oral weekly risedronate 35 mg, with concomitant 500-1000 mg of elemental calcium and 400-800 IU/day of vitamin D supplements. Fracture endpoints were analyzed by predefined subgroups of 25(OH)D insufficient and sufficient patients. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on fractures was investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models., Results: At baseline, mean serum 25(OH)D was 31.9 ng/mL in the teriparatide group and 31.5 ng/mL in the risedronate group, and 16.8% and 17.9% of patients, respectively, were 25(OH)D insufficient. At month 6, the mean serum 25(OH)D concentration decreased in teriparatide-treated patients to 24.5 ng/mL (by approximately 23%) but remained relatively constant in risedronate-treated patients (32.2 ng/mL) (p < 0.001). Proportions of 25(OH)D insufficient patients at month 6 were 26.7% and 5.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate for any of the fracture endpoints did not significantly differ between subgroups by 25(OH)D sufficiency status at baseline, with nonsignificant (p > 0.1) treatment-by-25(OH)D interactions in all fracture analyses., Conclusions: Serum 25(OH)D concentration decreases during teriparatide treatment. Fracture risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ between the two groups of patients defined by baseline 25(OH)D., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

This post-hoc analysis queried whether women experiencing fracture on denosumab indicates inadequate treatment response or whether the risk of subsequent fracture remains low with continuing denosumab. Results showed that denosumab decreases the risk of subsequent fracture and fracture sustained while on denosumab is not necessarily indicative of inadequate treatment response., Introduction: This analysis assessed whether a fracture sustained during denosumab therapy indicates inadequate treatment response and if the risk of a subsequent fracture decreases with continuing denosumab treatment., Methods: In FREEDOM, a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of denosumab, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized to placebo or denosumab for 3 years. In the 7-year FREEDOM Extension, all participants were allocated to receive denosumab. Here we compare subsequent osteoporotic fracture rates between denosumab-treated subjects during FREEDOM or the Extension and placebo-treated subjects in FREEDOM., Results: During FREEDOM, 438 placebo- and 272 denosumab-treated subjects had an osteoporotic fracture. Exposure-adjusted subject incidence per 100 subject-years was lower for denosumab (6.7) vs placebo (10.1). Combining all subjects on denosumab from FREEDOM and the Extension for up to 10 years (combined denosumab), 794 (13.7%) had an osteoporotic fracture while on denosumab. Of these, one or more subsequent fractures occurred in 144 (18.1%) subjects, with an exposure-adjusted incidence of 5.8 per 100 subject-years, similar to FREEDOM denosumab (6.7 per 100 subject-years) and lower than FREEDOM placebo (10.1 per 100 subject-years). Adjusting for prior fracture, the risk of having a subsequent on-study osteoporotic fracture was lower in the combined denosumab group vs placebo (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.43-0.81]; P = 0.0012)., Conclusions: These data demonstrate that denosumab decreases the risk of subsequent fracture and a fracture sustained while on denosumab is not necessarily indicative of inadequate treatment response.

Economic evaluations are increasingly used to assess the value of health interventions, but variable quality and heterogeneity limit the use of these evaluations by decision-makers. These recommendations provide guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards., Introduction: This paper aims to provide recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis in order to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards., Methods: A working group was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis to make recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, to define an osteoporosis-specific reference case to serve a minimum standard for all economic analyses in osteoporosis, to discuss methodologic challenges and initiate a call for research. A literature review, a face-to-face meeting in New York City (including 11 experts), and a review/approval by a larger group of experts worldwide (including 23 experts in total) were conducted., Results: Recommendations on the type of economic evaluation, methods for economic evaluation, modeling aspects, base-case analysis and population, excess mortality, fracture costs and disutility, treatment characteristics, and model validation were provided. Recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in osteoporosis were also made and an osteoporosis-specific checklist was designed that includes items to report when performing an economic evaluation in osteoporosis. Further, 12 minimum criteria for economic evaluations in osteoporosis were identified and 12 methodologic challenges and need for further research were discussed., Conclusion: While the working group acknowledges challenges and the need for further research, these recommendations are intended to supplement general and national guidelines for economic evaluations, improve transparency, quality, and comparability of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, and maintain methodologic standards to increase their use by decision-makers.

Fragility fractures are increasingly recognized as a complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with fracture risk that increases with disease duration and poor glycemic control. Yet the identification and management of fracture risk in these patients remains challenging. This review explores the clinical characteristics of bone fragility in adults with diabetes and highlights recent studies that have evaluated bone mineral density (BMD), bone microstructure and material properties, biochemical markers, and fracture prediction algorithms (i.e., FRAX) in these patients. It further reviews the impact of diabetes drugs on bone as well as the efficacy of osteoporosis treatments in this population. We finally propose an algorithm for the identification and management of diabetic patients at increased fracture risk.

Autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the treatment of choice for patients with some malignant and non-malignant hematological diseases. Advances in transplantation techniques and supportive care measures have substantially increased the number of long-term HSCT survivors. This has led to an increasing patient population suffering from the late effects of HSCT, of which, bone loss and its consequent fragility fractures lead to substantial morbidity. Altered bone health, with consequent fragility fractures, and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are factors affecting long-term quality of life after HSCT. Hypogonadism, HSCT preparative regimens, nutritional factors, and glucocorticoids all contribute to accelerated bone loss and increased fracture risk. Management strategies should include bone mineral density examination, evaluation of clinical risk factors, and general dietary and physical activity measures. Evidence has accumulated permitting recommendations for more attentiveness to evaluation and monitoring of bone health, with appropriate application of osteoporosis pharmacotherapies to patients at increased risk of bone loss and fracture.

We pilot-tested a trial of home exercise on individuals with osteoporosis and spine fracture. Our target enrollment was met, though it took longer than expected. Participants stayed in the study and completed the exercise program with no safety concerns. Future trials should expand the inclusion criteria and consider other changes., Purpose: Osteoporotic fragility fractures create a substantial human and economic burden. There have been calls for a large randomized controlled trial examining the effect of exercise on fracture incidence. The B3E pilot trial was designed to evaluate the feasibility of a large trial examining the effects of home exercise on individuals at high risk of fracture., Methods: Community-dwelling women ≥ 65 years with radiographically confirmed vertebral compression fractures were recruited at seven sites in Canada and Australia. We randomized participants in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-month home exercise program or equal attention control group, both delivered by a physiotherapist (PT). Participants received six PT home visits in addition to monthly phone calls from the PT and a blinded research assistant. The primary feasibility outcomes of the study were recruitment rate (20 per site in 1 year), retention rate (75% completion), and intervention adherence rate (60% of weeks meeting exercise goals). Secondary outcomes included falls, fractures and adverse events., Results: One hundred forty-one participants were recruited; an average of 20 per site, though most sites took longer than anticipated. Retention and adherence met the criteria for success: 92% of participants completed the study; average adherence was 66%. The intervention group did not differ significantly in the number of falls (IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.63) or fragility fractures (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.05) compared to the control group. There were 18 serious adverse events in the intervention group and 12 in the control group., Conclusion: An RCT of home exercise in women with vertebral fractures is feasible but recruitment was a challenge. Suggestions are made for the conduct of future trials.

Persistence with prescribed medications for chronic diseases is important; however, persistence with osteoporosis treatments is historically poor. In this prospective cohort study of postmenopausal women treated for osteoporosis in real-world clinical practice settings in the USA and Canada, 24-month persistence with denosumab was 58%., Purpose: Patients who persist with their prescribed osteoporosis treatment have increased bone mineral density (BMD) and reduced risk of fracture. Twelve-month persistence with denosumab in routine clinical practice is as high as 95%, but there are limited data on longer-term persistence with denosumab in this setting., Methods: This single-arm, prospective, cohort study evaluated 24-month persistence with denosumab administered every 6 months in postmenopausal women receiving treatment for osteoporosis in real-world clinical practice in the USA and Canada. Endpoints and analyses included the percentage of patients who persist with denosumab at 24 months (greater than or equal to four injections with a gap between injections of no more than 6 months plus 8 weeks), the total number of injections received by each patient, changes in BMD in persistent patients, and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and fractures., Results: Among 935 enrolled patients, 24-month persistence was 58% (50% in US patients and 75% in Canadian patients). A majority of patients received at least four injections over the observation period (62% of US patients and 81% of Canadian patients). Among patients who were persistent at 24 months and who had a baseline, 12-month, and 24-month DXA scan, mean BMD increased from baseline to 24 months by 7.8% at the lumbar spine and 2.1% at the femoral neck. SAEs and fractures were reported for 122 (13.0%) patients and 54 (5.8%) patients, respectively., Conclusions: Persistence with denosumab for 24 months yields improvement in BMD among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated in routine clinical practice in the USA and Canada.

The 2-year, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled fracture endpoint VERO study included postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, who had at least 2 moderate or 1 severe baseline vertebral fractures (VFx), and bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤-1.5. Patients were treated with either s.c. daily teriparatide 20 μg or oral weekly risedronate 35 mg. As previously reported, the risk of new VFx and clinical fractures (a composite of clinical VFx and nonvertebral fragility fractures [NVFFx]) was statistically significantly reduced with teriparatide compared with risedronate. Here we present the prospectively planned subgroup analyses of fracture data across subgroups, which were predefined by the following baseline characteristics: age, number and severity of prevalent VFx, prevalent nonvertebral fractures (NVFx), glucocorticoid use, prior osteoporosis drugs, recent bisphosphonate use, clinical VFx in the year before study entry, and baseline BMD. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on the primary endpoint (new VFx), and the four key secondary endpoints (including clinical fractures and NVFFx) were investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. A total of 1360 women were randomized and treated (680 per group). Mean age was 72.1 years, mean (SD) number of prevalent VFx was 2.7 (2.1), 55.4% had a BMD T-score <-2.5, 36.5% had a recent clinical VFx, 28.3% had a prior major NVFx, 43.2% were osteoporosis drug-naïve, 39.3% were recent bisphosphonate users, and 9.3% were taking glucocorticoids at a prednisone-equivalent dose of >5 mg/d. For most fracture endpoints, the risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ in any of the subgroups analyzed (treatment-by-subgroup interaction p > 0.1), with most subgroups mirroring results from the total study population. In conclusion, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the antifracture efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate was consistent in a wide range of patient settings, including treatment-naïve and previously treated patients. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

There has been renewed interest of late in the role of modeling-based formation (MBF) during osteoporosis therapy. Here we describe early effects of an established anabolic (teriparatide) versus antiresorptive (denosumab) agent on remodeling-based formation (RBF), MBF, and overflow MBF (oMBF) in human transiliac bone biopsies. Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis received subcutaneous teriparatide (n = 33, 20 μg/d) or denosumab (n = 36, 60 mg once/6 months), open-label for 6 months at 7 US and Canadian sites. Subjects received double fluorochrome labeling at baseline and before biopsy at 3 months. Sites of bone formation were designated as MBF if the underlying cement line was smooth, RBF if scalloped, and oMBF if formed over smooth cement lines adjacent to scalloped reversal lines. At baseline, mean RBF/bone surface (BS), MBF/BS, and oMBF/BS were similar between the teriparatide and denosumab groups in each bone envelope assessed (cancellous, endocortical, periosteal). All types of formation significantly increased from baseline in the cancellous and endocortical envelopes (differences p < 0.001) with teriparatide (range of changes 2.9- to 21.9-fold), as did MBF in the periosteum (p < 0.001). In contrast, all types of formation were decreased or not significantly changed with denosumab, except MBF/BS in the cancellous envelope, which increased 2.5-fold (difference p = 0.048). These data highlight mechanistic differences between these agents: all 3 types of bone formation increased significantly with teriparatide, whereas formation was predominantly decreased or not significantly changed with denosumab, except for a slight increase in MBF/BS in the cancellous envelope. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research., (© 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Background: No clinical trials have compared osteoporosis drugs with incident fractures as the primary outcome. We compared the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide with risedronate in patients with severe osteoporosis., Methods: In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, we enrolled post-menopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe vertebral fracture and a bone mineral density T score of less than or equal to -1·50. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 20 μg of teriparatide once daily plus oral weekly placebo or 35 mg of oral risedronate once weekly plus daily injections of placebo for 24 months. The primary outcome was new radiographic vertebral fractures. Secondary, gated outcomes included new and worsened radiographic vertebral fractures, clinical fractures (a composite of non-vertebral and symptomatic vertebral), and non-vertebral fractures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01709110) and EudraCT (2012-000123-41)., Findings: We enrolled 680 patients in each group. At 24 months, new vertebral fractures occurred in 28 (5·4%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group and 64 (12·0%) of 680 patients in the risedronate group (risk ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·29-0·68; p<0·0001). Clinical fractures occurred in 30 (4·8%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group compared with 61 (9·8%) of 680 in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·32-0·74; p=0·0009). Non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 25 (4·0%) patients in the teriparatide group and 38 (6·1%) in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·10; p=0·10)., Interpretation: Among post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures is significantly lower in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving risedronate., Funding: Lilly., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL) that decreases osteoclast formation, function and survival, and is approved for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at increased or high risk for fracture, among other indications. During the pivotal 3-year fracture trial FREEDOM, denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months significantly reduced new vertebral (68%), hip (40%), and nonvertebral (20%) fractures; increased bone mineral density (BMD); and reduced bone turnover markers compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Questions have arisen regarding imbalances of certain low-frequency adverse events (AEs) observed in FREEDOM, as well as the top 5 most frequent adverse reactions listed in the United States prescribing information (USPI; back pain, pain in extremity, musculoskeletal pain, hypercholesterolemia, and cystitis). We examined the incidences of these AEs in women who originally received placebo during FREEDOM and then received denosumab for up to 3 years during the FREEDOM Extension (Crossover Group). This provided a unique opportunity for comparison with the original 3-year denosumab FREEDOM observations. We also examined the incidences of these AEs over 6 years of denosumab treatment (Long-term Group; ie, comparing a second 3 years of treatment with findings in the first 3 years). There was no indication of increasing trends regarding the imbalances of either low-frequency AEs or common AEs observed in FREEDOM. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research., (© 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)